Evidence of meeting #80 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Can I speak on the same point of order?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
The Liberals are clearly more interested in holding private organizations accountable than they are in being accountable themselves. I wish they were as interested in answering questions about their own behaviour as they are in asking questions to private citizens and private organizations.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, let people finish the points of order, and let me rule on them before you start criticizing me.
Is this a point of order, Mr. Johns?
Conservative
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I want to hear from Mr. Terrazzano, actually. He's brought some really good and important feedback to this committee.
I ran a chamber of commerce. I can remember years ago how many people sat on my board. I'd never forget, for any board, how many people would sit on my board.
I think this is a reasonable question. He's a witness testifying at committee, and he should answer the question. It's under oath.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Let me judge.
I will be honest that I don't believe any of these are valid points of order.
I would ask Mr. Sousa to ask the questions and not talk over Mr. Terrazzano. He is free to answer as opaquely as ministers do and as deputy ministers do.
Mr. Sousa is welcome to be as pointed as, perhaps, the chair was in a past life, sitting and asking the questions.
Can we proceed, because we're running short of time?
You have one minute and four seconds left.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll proceed to Mr. Conacher.
The Auditor General's in the midst, as you know, of completing this audit of the ArriveCAN application. Do you have confidence in her ability to complete the audit, Mr. Conacher?
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
I do, generally. I would prefer that the appointment process for all of Canada's democratic government watchdogs and government watchdogs across the country be more non-partisan, that it be an independent commission coming up with a short list of qualified candidates and then sending it to an all-party committee to make the final choice rather than having it in the hands of the ruling party.
The fact that she has a fixed term of office does help secure her independence and helps—
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I'm sensitive to time.
In regard to the RCMP, which is currently undertaking the investigation regarding ArriveCAN, do you trust the RCMP in completing its investigation?
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
I have the same concerns with regard to the appointment process of the commissioner. It was done by the ruling party cabinet. It should not be done that way. It should be a non-partisan process, because the RCMP and all the other watchdogs are enforcing key laws that apply mostly to cabinet and should not be chosen by cabinet.
I also have serious questions about the RCMP, based on what we have discovered through access to information requests concerning the investigation of the SNC-Lavalin affair and the fact that we're still waiting for 2,200 pages of documents that the RCMP is still hiding a year and a half after we requested them.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm sorry. That is your time.
Next we have Madame Vignola for six minutes, please.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Mr. Terrazzano and Mr. Conacher.
In the course of the committee's study on the ArriveCAN app, previous witnesses have suggested that, in the long run, the government would do well to invest in its own IT experts and to provide training.
Would that be a better use of federal resources? If not, how do we make better use of existing resources?
Do you have any thoughts on that, Mr. Terrazzano?
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
I didn't catch that. Can you repeat it? I apologize.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
No problem.
If hiring new people or training existing IT people and providing ongoing training isn't the way to go, I'd like to know why, first of all.
Second of all, what would be the best option from a value for money standpoint? I get a lot of emails from taxpayers about that.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
For starters, it's hard to believe that of the additional 98,000 government employees who have been hired since 2015, we couldn't tap two of them to be able to figure out who in Canada can build and do the IT work on an app. It's hard to believe, as the in-house costs of the government have increased due to about 40% additional bureaucrats since 2015, that we couldn't tap them to figure out who to have build and maintain the app.
The second question as it relates to recommendations is that we're really looking for accountability moving forward. Which government employee is going to be held accountable for this? Who's going to lose their bonus? Who's going to be out of a job?
Also, we have to improve transparency measures. We talked about the Information Commissioner's recommendations to make sure that the agencies that are getting these outsourced contracts are fully transparent with taxpayers to make sure that government institutions can't use different sections of the act, specifically sections 19 and 16, to withhold information from taxpayers.
As I mentioned, as a brownie point, I believe that we should also implement a sunshine list, like the vast majority of Canadian provinces.
Bloc
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
Thank you.
I'm sorry, but I have to answer in English. My French needs work.
The situation, I think, is that I was interviewed almost 20 years ago by a CBC reporter about a past information technology scandal. I said that it's not surprising at all. You have middle-level executives who don't know computers very well trying to make huge computer purchases. Of course they're going to choose wrong.
We need to have a system put in place of people in house, in the public service, who know what they're doing. Then, if you want to have people like GC Strategies, you just pay them as advisers. They should not be getting 20% to 30% commissions for finding subcontractors. Just pay them as advisers for a contracting process to do a due diligence as to whether the companies that are bidding have competence. Then they would be paid...not $11 million to give that advice.
It's a capacity issue. It's existed for 20 years. I think if you looked at any big business you would find the same thing. For a long period of time, you had middle executives who had no expertise in computers and technology making huge technology purchases, and screwing up and wasting a bunch of money most of the time.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you.
Earlier, I asked federal officials about something I really find surprising. I'm shocked that not a single public servant at any level reported anything odd in the awarding of contracts for the ArriveCAN app.
Do you have a theory as to why no one on the inside reported anything? How do we fix that?
You can go first, Mr. Conacher, followed by Mr. Terrazzano.
Conservative
Co-founder, Democracy Watch
Thank you.
You know well the gaps in whistle-blower protection. You're always sticking your neck out if you blow the whistle in the public service. People outside of the public service can't blow the whistle. I think that really is what explains it.
It is controversial, but I think there should be a duty to report if you witness wrongdoing or something that seems to be wrong. You should have to report it to the Integrity Commissioner.
I know that's a controversial recommendation, but I believe in it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm afraid that is our time.
It's Mr. Johns next, for six minutes, please.
